Mach3moe

Welcome / Friendly Reminder

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope that you enjoy contributing here and do so for many years to come.

I wanted to quickly point out, however, that inflammatory and unreferenced statements have no place in the encyclopedia, such as the statement you included in the Hancock Stadium article about "years of ineffective leadership." While someone familiar with the situation might agree with that as an accurate representation of the facts, it is not recommended for inclusion in Wikipedia, due to established policies on neutrality in articles.

If you have any further questions or concerns, I'd be happy to assist you! Just leave me a message on my Talk Page and I'll be sure to get back in touch with you!

Thanks!

--InDeBiz1 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your statement in the Hancock Stadium article about "years of ineffective leadership" is not one that can be included in Wikipedia. This is an opinion, not a fact. Can you provide a reputable source for that statement? If you can not, it is - for the purposes of Wikipedia - a fact. Not only is it not - for the purposes of Wikipedia - a fact, but some could make the argument that a statement like that borders on slander, which Wikipedia can not be exposed to.

I'm sorry, but that particular statement can not be allowed to remain in the article. If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to leave a message on my Talk Page and I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

Thanks!

--InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For the final time, it does not matter if you feel that the statement is accurate. It is inflammatory, it exposes Wikipedia to claims of slander, and the statement is not cited. Therefore, it can not be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't appreciate the personal attack against me in your edit summary. If you insert the line into the article again, I will not hesitate to bring you to the attention of an Administrator for vandalism. IF - and only if - you can cite a reputable publication for the claim that you're trying to leave in the article, THEN - and only then - it can be allowed to remain. Otherwise, for purposes of maintaining neutrality (as is a requirement for any article on Wikipedia)....

I would also invite you to review WP:PROVEIT, which - I believe you might agree - supports my reasoning for removing the line in question.

Thanks!

--InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My removal of the information that you insist on including in the Hancock Stadium article has nothing to do with my "self importance," as you put it. The fact remains that you can not provide a verifiable source for the information that you insist on including. See WP:PROVEIT for more on this subject. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please avoid being uncivil in your edit summaries, as there is no need to make accusations. Also, InDeBiz1 has a point; if you do not have any verifiable sources, please do not add information pertaining these sources into articles, as that is introducing uncited content, which would be bad. Hope that makes sense. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on the Hancock Stadium article. Continuing to disrupt may lead to a temporary block of your account. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing Me of Vandalism

You have no right to accuse me of vandalism, as you did with your recent edit on the Hancock Stadium article. If you would take the time to review the comment left above by Master of Puppets, you would see that my edits are not only A) in good faith, but also B) correct in that you have yet to cite a verifiable source for the statement to you seem hell bent on adding to the article. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:PROVEIT for more on this issue. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Robertson Memorial Field House

The difference between your contribution to the Hancock Stadium article and mine to the Robertson Memorial Field House article is that I have a verifiable source for the adjective phrase "longtime." Any reasonable editor / reader, upon viewing the article being referenced, would agree that twenty-eight years at one institution would meet the description of the phrase. Your contribution to the Hancock Stadium article, on the other hand, had no verifiable source to back up the "years of ineffective leadership" phrase that you wanted to include (which, for the record, I have no reason to dispute... you may be correct, for all I truly know). As I've said before, if you can cite a verifiable source, then I have no issue with the contribution.

That aside, I've rewritten the lead sentence on the Robertson Memorial Field House article. In the future, please keep WP:CIVIL in mind when making your edit summaries, however. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)